Green politics, environmentalism and the left

[S.O.I]

How important is it? is it good or bad? is it neccesary? should left wing politics be driven at the expense of the earth, or can red and black eventually be icorporated with green?

[ComradeOm]

Check out the Sciences & Environment forum where this question crops up fairly regularly. Although I could save you the trouble and simply declare that no, Green politics are petit-bourgeois politics and that the core philosophy of environmentalism is fundamentally reactionary. The focus of the workers' movement must remain firmly on the workers themselves

I expect that Vanguard1917 will be along shortly to elaborate ;)

[FreeFocus]

I support green politics and efforts when they are anti-capitalist in nature. The only way to bring about a green, sustainable world is through socialism, with controlled production for need, not profit.

Green politics are very important to me. I would not join an anti-environmental organization.

[STJ]

I do as well.

[teenagebricks]

I've been toying with the idea of eco socialism for a while, and in my opinion green and leftist politics go hand in hand, but only if you're willing to look beyond the average left of centre green parties. I don't consider environmentalism to be detached from socialism because I think most socialists are thoughtful enough to realise that there is a problem with the environment and that it has been brought on by capitalism, but I do think it should get more attantion eithin the left. To put it bluntly, I don't see a great deal of point in bringing about a better world if we're all just going to be wiped out by some climate related disaster a few years down the line anyway. That said, I am very much opposed to the mainstream green movement for the obvious reason that it does not oppose capitalism as much as it perhaps should.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Check out the Sciences & Environment forum where this question crops up fairly regularly. Although I could save you the trouble and simply declare that no, Green politics are petit-bourgeois politics and that the core philosophy of environmentalism is fundamentally reactionary. The focus of the workers' movement must remain firmly on the workers themselves

I expect that Vanguard1917 will be along shortly to elaborate ;)

I agree partly. But that does not mean we should have contempt for the environment as it is a petit-bourgeois politics. We should incorporate OUR own brand of green politics into our lives.

[apathy maybe]

How important is it? is it good or bad? is it neccesary? should left wing politics be driven at the expense of the earth, or can red and black eventually be icorporated with green?

Environmentalism is essential for the having a healthy planet, and a good place for humans to live.

If nothing else.

Of course, there is much more to it than that.

Oh, and I suggest that you take anything anyone says about capitalism being "environmentalist" or, environmentalists being "capitalists" with a large degree of scepticism. After all, capitalism requires, and assumes, that there is an effectively unlimited amount of resources. That is obviously false.

Socialism, which would build machines to last, rather than to break after the warranty has expired (necessitating new purchases), which would not require everyone to have one of everything (or more), but would encourage sharing, etc. is much better for the Earth.

At least, so long as you don't let crazy fuckers who don't care about pollution, and think that it is good if everyone has twenty tvs and a mansion to live in (ignoring the fact that there would be no one to clean it...), into power. There is nothing wrong with having twenty tvs, except that the attitude that says it is good is a capitalist attitude. Mass over consumption is a capitalist thing, something we can leave behind.

[ComradeOm]

After all, capitalism requires, and assumes, that there is an effectively unlimited amount of resources. That is obviously falseHuh? The principle of scarcity (ie, that there is not an unlimited number of resources) underpins the whole of capitalism. Its pretty much the driving force behind the market


At least, so long as you don't let crazy fuckers who don't care about pollution, and think that it is good if everyone has twenty tvs and a mansion to live in (ignoring the fact that there would be no one to clean it...), into power. There is nothing wrong with having twenty tvs, except that the attitude that says it is good is a capitalist attitude. Mass over consumption is a capitalist thing, something we can leave behindWhich is a perfect example of the puritan and misanthropic attitude that forms the core of the environmental philosophy. Asceticism is not revolutionary and lowering living standards is not socialist

[Glenn Beck]

Much of the debate about use of resources vs. living standards seems to take for granted that there is a direct correlation between the consumption of resources and standard of living. This is just manifestly false. I would consider a colossal proportion of the resources expended on Earth to be completely unnecessary to a well organized socialist society. Certainly the question of socialism is the more fundamental, once production is organized on the basis of human need rather than for profit and the basic wants of human beings are settled then society as a whole can determine to what extent they favor frugality of resources and the creation of "more". "More" does not necessarily mean better, and I feel a truly democratic society would be better able to discriminate between those circumstances where large amounts of labor and resources are appropriate and where simpler ways suffice. I believe in the far future it is an open question as to whether humanity will settle into a more or less steady equillibrium or will continue to progress exponentially. Neither is fundamentally right or wrong so long as the option chosen serves the interests of humanity rather than individuals or abstract entities.